How "dark" is an erotic story allowed to be for fun?

[lovecraft68]

For the thread at large, I would simply ask to not forget the following aspect of the thread question:

How FUN should a dark erotic story be allowed to be?

I think if a story is dark, the word fun may not quite be used in the same context. Sure, horror movies can be fun, even disturbing ones, but if you're discussing something that at its heart should be erotic, I'm not sure fun would be right word. It can be good, it can make a reader think, it can get a reaction from them, but not sure dark and fun mix, unless we have different personal definitions of 'dark'

I published a story, a father/daughter piece as an experiment. Its a bleak trainwreck and even the sex isn't sexy, but I wanted to see if people would kill it for shitting all over a genre that likes its stories fun and fluffy for the most part, or if people would get it. I got several comments along the lines of "I'm not even sure I liked this, but good job." so it was a success, but no one called it fun.

If you have any interest, I did a What I wrote and Why entry about it.

https://www.literotica.com/s/the-story-of-that-damned-red-dress?comments_after=16674201

 

[SimonDoom]

For the thread at large, I would simply ask to not forget the following aspect of the thread question:

How FUN should a dark erotic story be allowed to be?

I suppose it depends on what one considers to be "fun." I consider erotica, generally, to be fun. Reading is a pleasure even if the subject matter is grim. Being erotically stimulated and aroused is fun. I realize people's tastes vary on this point, but to me there's a natural, even delicious, connection between darkness and transgression on the one hand and sex on the other. Sex if sometimes more "fun" if it's naughty.

 

[WeShallUnclench]

I think if a story is dark, the word fun may not quite be used in the same context. Sure, horror movies can be fun, even disturbing ones, but if you're discussing something that at its heart should be erotic, I'm not sure fun would be right word. It can be good, it can make a reader think, it can get a reaction from them, but not sure dark and fun mix, unless we have different personal definitions of 'dark'

I published a story, a father/daughter piece as an experiment. Its a bleak trainwreck and even the sex isn't sexy, but I wanted to see if people would kill it for shitting all over a genre that likes its stories fun and fluffy for the most part, or if people would get it. I got several comments along the lines of "I'm not even sure I liked this, but good job." so it was a success, but no one called it fun.

If you have any interest, I did a What I wrote and Why entry about it.

https://www.literotica.com/s/the-story-of-that-damned-red-dress?comments_after=16674201

I'll check it out!

Regarding the bolded part, my own stories pretty much always aim for dark humor, especially dark humor about dark erotic subjects. More often than not, not from a "truthful satire that really makes you think" angle, but from a pure mindless fun and excitement angle (over outrageous sex-related things happening).

There is plently of precedent, too, for harsh and gory and scary things presented in an utterly irreverent way.

Think of something like the 'Superjail' cartoon, which was basically all about awful people doing awful things in a nonstop chaotic barrage with not much concern whatsoever about portraying anything in a "useful" or even unoffensive way.

Regarding specifically the erotic angle, I personally prefer that everything erotic has always something silly and absurd in it, even if it is predominantly serious otherwise.
As I also prefer "dark" humor, the step to "dark erotic humor" is obvious to me.

 

[lovecraft68]

I'll check it out!

Regarding the bolded part, my own stories pretty much always aim for dark humor, especially dark humor about dark erotic subjects. More often than not, not from a "truthful satire that really makes you think" angle, but from a pure mindless fun and excitement angle.

There is plently of precedent, too, for harsh and gory and scary things presented in an utterly irreverent way.

Think of something like the 'Superjail' cartoon, which was basically all about awful people doing awful things in a nonstop chaotic barrage with not much concern whatsoever about portraying anything in a "useful" or even unoffensive way.

Regarding specifically the erotic angle, I personally prefer that everything erotic has always something silly and absurd in it, even if it is predominantly serious otherwise.
As I also prefer "dark" humor, the step to "dark erotic humor" is obvious to me.

Okay, right, dark humor. Since I grew up in the 80's Heathers comes to mind as a good example of that. Funny as hell, if you could see it.

When it comes to writing, my 'dark' is more traditional in portraying fucked up broken people doing fucked up things because they came from fucked up things. I wrote a 44 chapter series here-49 but one chapter of the five part final was banned due to going to HAM and I pulled the rest and wouldn't rewrite it so its just for sale. Its a sibling story that features, abuse, drug addiction, hardcore BDSM sex that flirts with pure violence, satanism and mental illness. Very few read it, but it built a small loyal following and over the years has obtained a slight cult status in the genre, some humor mixed in because my characters are sarcastic smart asses, but for the most part just a "dark romance'

My influences for my erotic horror series, are I spit on Your Grave, 80's splatter movies, action novels Destroyer and Max Bolan, and of course...porn. At shows I bill my books as All the vices in one package. I break up the trainwreck with some timely one liners and occasional stupid things done by one of the characters that gets them mocked, but its pretty much played straight.

 

[Voboy]

For the thread at large, I would simply ask to not forget the following aspect of the thread question:

How FUN should a dark erotic story be allowed to be?

My quibble is with the term "allowed."

On a site with minimal rules, the market determines what's allowed.

Then there's "fun." Fun might mean that something causes smiles or laughter. I doubt I'd ever write (or read) a violent rape story for laughs, but some might. And if that story finds an audience, hey presto! all's as it should be: it's both "fun" and "allowed." Most definitely, I've written crime stories that are darkly humorous. Rape/NC isn't my thing by and large, but there's humor to be found in all sorts of darkness.

Fun doesn't always mean funny, of course. At that point, the level of fun is up to the writer and the readers.

 

[lovecraft68]

My quibble is with the term "allowed."

On a site with minimal rules, the market determines what's allowed.

Then there's "fun." Fun might mean that something causes smiles or laughter. I doubt I'd ever write (or read) a violent rape story for laughs, but some might. And if that story finds an audience, hey presto! all's as it should be: it's both "fun" and "allowed." Most definitely, I've written crime stories that are darkly humorous. Rape/NC isn't my thing by and large, but there's humor to be found in all sorts of darkness.

Fun doesn't always mean funny, of course. At that point, the level of fun is up to the writer and the readers.

Seeing you brought up non con, its all about the where as much as what.

I always use Girl with a dragon tattoo as a perfect example. Horrible rape scene in the book, its not arousing its disgusting and enraging. The scene in the movie was the same, it was meant to show what a creep the guy was and what she went through and why she does what she does to him. Typica revenge set up using the rapesploitation device.

Now, take that scene and put it in the NC section here? People are getting off to it because HERE non consent is seen as the meat of the kink in those stories. Context may be the right word, but I'm not sure it always fits, but is an excuse used by certain people here to break rules.

 

[lovecraft68]

I can't resist, this thread has had this in my head since I saw it

 

[MillieDynamite]

I don't believe in censorship. A simple trigger warning should suffice. I can read and if the woman (or man) shrugs it off as inconsequential I know in reality at some point their walls will come crashing down. You do what you must to get things published. When I watched Dexter, I sort of felt bad rooting for him. But it's fiction and anything can (and does) happen in fiction. All writers must write what they want, the way they want, and let chips fall where they fall. After all, it isn't reality.

So I feel this might be getting at the core of the matter, at least for me.

I wanna ask you to elaborate, but at the same time I really, really don't want to push too far and move into something upsetting/scary/infuriating you really don't need to hear from a rando on a random forum thread.

So my question regarding "rape presented in a harmless way" will be under the spoiler. It will be a general question again, not a personal one, but please don't engage with it if you got a "Fck No" vibe about all this.

(Of everyone else, I kindly ask the same, and also don't reply directly to the spoiler part if you choose to read this, unless the person I ask first replies outside of spoiler).




As I said, this goes to the core of this thread -

If the assault is presented as something the characters shrug off without consequence and lasting hurt (maybe even derive pleasure from), the exact opposite of the devastation you talk about -

is that a story you would just personally dislike and stay away from?

is that an evil/harmful story that should not be posted at all, for anyone?

The basic idea is that violence isn't always represented realistically. In a cartoon, a character gets flattened like a pancake and then just pops back into shape, alive and well.

The question is, do you feel there are subjects that cannot be treated in such a carefree way, and must be portrayed with a degree of realism and respect?
And of course this goes for any noncon scenario specifically.

Again, not just "must do the subject justice for me to like it" but "must be truthful or else that story should not be shared at all, and either banned per the rules or protested by the community".


(Technical sidenote, do spoilers work differently here from other forums? I posted the message between the [Spoiler] parts, but I cannot click on it to open it in the post. Can you guys read it fine?)
Update: Now Inline spoiler.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I think if you write about rapist, he should enjoy his advocation. He should either plot and plan, or do it on the spur of the moment, in a shear ecstatic joy of causing pain. Rapist are power freaks, they are sadistic, no matter the type of rapist, no matter their motivation, it is something they want to do, love to do, and that should be a part of what they do. There is no such thing as a kind rapist.

And I love Leonard Cohen!

I can't resist, this thread has had this in my head since I saw it

 

[lovecraft68]

I think if you write about rapist, he should enjoy his advocation. He should either plot and plan, or do it on the spur of the moment, in a shear ecstatic joy of causing pain. Rapist are power freaks, they are sadistic, no matter the type of rapist, no matter their motivation, it is something they want to do, love to do, and that should be a part of what they do. There is no such thing as a kind rapist.

And I love Leonard Cohen!

Agreed, except does that play here with lit's "ahem" rule?

In the book Mind Hunter-they may have mentioned it in the Netflix series, I didn't watch it-one of the people Douglas dealt with was a serial rapist who generally didn't kill his victims. But one girl faked an orgasm while he was assaulting her, figuring it would help him get off and make it seem like she liked it. He killed her because she liked it, and he didn't want his victims to enjoy it.

To which, I would be remiss if I didn't use that true story to once again talk about how much more damaging lits BS "victim has to like it" rule is.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

In the book Mind Hunter-they may have mentioned it in the Netflix series, I didn't watch it-one of the people Douglas dealt with was a serial rapist who generally didn't kill his victims. But one girl faked an orgasm while he was assaulting her, figuring it would help him get off and make it seem like she liked it. He killed her because she liked it, and he didn't want his victims to enjoy it.

To which, I would be remiss if I didn't use that true story to once again talk about how much more damaging lits BS "victim has to like it" rule is.

How do you know that that story is true if the only person who knew that she was faking didn't live to tell anyone? If the rapist knew that she was faking it then he would have known that she wasn't liking it and therefore would not have killed her for liking it.

 

[lovecraft68]

How do you know that that story is true if the only person who knew that she was faking didn't live to tell anyone? If the rapist knew that she was faking it then he would have known that she wasn't liking it and therefore would not have killed her for liking it.

Because Douglas interviewed the rapist and asked why he killed that one woman and that was his answer.

Mindhunter is a factual biography about John Douglas the guy who was the first true FBI profiler, Tom Harris based his character Jack Crawford (played by Scot Glenn in the movie) on Douglas in Silence of the Lambs. The book is based on his investigative techniques, how he could get into the mind of a killer and pieces of his interviews with several killers including super fraud manson and what a little worm he was.

https://www.amazon.com/Mindhunter-Inside-Elite-Serial-Crime/dp/1501191969

 

[StillStunned]

Because Douglas interviewed the rapist and asked why he killed that one woman and that was his answer.

What @pink_silk_glove was getting at, I think, was why did he kill her if he knew she was faking it? He didn't want her to enjoy it, so he kills her for having an orgasm, but apparently he also knows she was faking it to end it sooner. Unless she told him while he was killing her that she was faking it, it seems very contradictory.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Because Douglas interviewed the rapist and asked why he killed that one woman and that was his answer.

Mindhunter is a factual biography about John Douglas the guy who was the first true FBI profiler, Tom Harris based his character Jack Crawford (played by Scot Glenn in the movie) on Douglas in Silence of the Lambs. The book is based on his investigative techniques, how he could get into the mind of a killer and pieces of his interviews with several killers including super fraud manson and what a little worm he was.

https://www.amazon.com/Mindhunter-Inside-Elite-Serial-Crime/dp/1501191969

But how can the faked orgasm be corroborated? If he killed her for enjoying the sex, then obviously he thought that the orgasm was authentic. Even if there were witnesses, the only person to know that it was faked (the victim) cannot testify to this. She is dead. If the victim is dead and the killer believes that she wasn't faking, then who else is there to testify that it was faked? I am not aware of any post mortem test to determine if an orgasm was achieved in the last hours/minutes of life.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Unless she told him while he was killing her that she was faking it, it seems very contradictory.

And if she did tell him, then he would have known that she didn't in fact enjoy it so much, so then his reasons for killing her could not have been for enjoying it.

 

[WeShallUnclench]

To which, I would be remiss if I didn't use that true story to once again talk about how much more damaging lits BS "victim has to like it" rule is.

That's interesting, though - I got the vibe earlier that several posters agreed that we cannot assume stories to be damaging, just because they have problematic content?

Or do you mean in the sense, only the rule is damaging because it artificially skews the content in one direction, giving no room to more truthful stories?
Damaging in the sense "it deprives us of a more complete picture"?

 

[lovecraft68]

That's interesting, though - I got the vibe earlier that several posters agreed that we cannot assume stories to be damaging, just because they have problematic content?

Or do you mean in the sense, it's damaging because it artificially skews the content in one direction, giving no room to more truthful stories?

I think misinformation can be damaging in certain aspects.

To be clear, NC isn't my thing, but I have no issue with people who want to read and write those stories. I don't think a flat out NC story is damaging anymore than any story previously discussed here. But...when the site pushes-as a rule-something that is ludicrously untrue, and perpetuates the theory no never means no, as opposed to what a straight up NC story would be, it can be problematic. XXX was talking about abuse, but wrong in his targeting certain careers, but sexual abuse is rampant, and whereas everything here should be seen as don't try this at home, it reinforces an idea way too many men already have.

 

[WeShallUnclench]

What @pink_silk_glove was getting at, I think, was why did he kill her if he knew she was faking it? He didn't want her to enjoy it, so he kills her for having an orgasm, but apparently he also knows she was faking it to end it sooner. Unless she told him while he was killing her that she was faking it, it seems very contradictory.

Now obviously you guys do what you want, but I for one would appreciate it if we do not discuss specific real life rapists too much in this thread, as I was really aiming for discussion of fiction.

My two cents to the above is, maybe the story doesn't quite make sense, but then again, neither do rapists, really - if you want to hurt someone, contradictory arguments and rationalizations are a feature, not a bug.

 

[lovecraft68]

What @pink_silk_glove was getting at, I think, was why did he kill her if he knew she was faking it? He didn't want her to enjoy it, so he kills her for having an orgasm, but apparently he also knows she was faking it to end it sooner. Unless she told him while he was killing her that she was faking it, it seems very contradictory.

It was because she tried, and he wanted the victims to beg and plead and be in pain, not have a good time.
You realize we're talking a violent criminal, right? Not exactly bastions of rationality.

 

[lovecraft68]

And if she did tell him, then he would have known that she didn't in fact enjoy it so much, so then his reasons for killing her could not have been for enjoying it.

I answered @StillStunned, but I am not going to go down the rabbit hole of you choosing to be argumentative. You don't believe it, don't. Its that easy.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

It was because she tried, and he wanted the victims to beg and plead and be in pain, not have a good time.
You realize we're talking a violent criminal, right? Not exactly bastions of rationality.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. The claim just does not logically add up. I get that he killed her because she appeared to be liking it. I get that he was engaging in a sadist power play. And I'm certainly not defensding the killer in any way. What does not make sense is that anyone could know that she was faking it. If the rapist killed her for enjoying it, there are only two scenarios: 1 - she actually did orgasm or 2 - her faking fooled him so he would not have known that she was faking.

If the killer said "I killed her for faking her orgasm because I didn't want her to enjoy it" then neither of those scenarios happened. It's not possible.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I just have this to say about the serial rapist that killed the woman. It doesn't matter if she was faking it or not. First, any rapist, serial rapist, or serial killer is an unreliable witness. Second, if he killed her, he decided on his reasoning and stuck with the story. It doesn't make his perception or what he says a reality. In the real world, one cannot trust anyone so fucked up as to repeatedly rape or murder as having the concept of right or wrong, real or imagined, or truthful or untruthful to tell you the absolute truth on anything.

 

[SimonDoom]

I just have this to say about the serial rapist that killed the woman. It doesn't matter if she was faking it or not. First, any rapist, serial rapist, or serial killer is an unreliable witness. Second, if he killed her, he decided on his reasoning and stuck with the story. It doesn't make his perception or what he says a reality. In the real world, one cannot trust anyone so fucked up as to repeatedly rape or murder as having the concept of right or wrong, real or imagined, or truthful or untruthful to tell you the absolute truth on anything.

I agree. We're talking about a psychopath. Psychopaths are notoriously dishonest and unreliable, and not especially self-aware. There are examples of serial killers who, like Ted Bundy, before being executed, "confess," but one wonders if they're just taking the opportunity to sadistically play with people while they still have a little more time.

 

[MillieDynamite]

He held out the possibility of revealing where "other bodies" were buried as well.

I agree. We're talking about a psychopath. Psychopaths are notoriously dishonest and unreliable, and not especially self-aware. There are examples of serial killers who, like Ted Bundy, before being executed, "confess," but one wonders if they're just taking the opportunity to sadistically play with people while they still have a little more time.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Can authors foresee how their work might influence readers? This is a topic we've debated here several times before, and every time it descends into equivocation.

Can we foresee exactly how every single reader will be influenced by something we write? Obviously not. Nobody could have foreseen that "Helter Skelter" would influence Charles Manson to murder, and if the song had never been written, it seems unlikely that Manson would've just lived out his days peacefully.

Can we foresee in a general sense the kinds of reactions our stories are likely to provoke among many readers? Well, given the amount of ink spilled in this forum about writing technique and how to get readers to feel certain ways about our stories, it sure feels like a lot of people here believe the answer is "yes", at least when it wouldn't have uncomfortable implications.

Every time we debate this question, I see people point out that the answer to the "exactly/every single reader" version of the question is "obviously no" - which, fair enough - and then talk as if this meant nothing was foreseeable. This is, at best, bad logic.

I'm not saying everybody in this discussion is doing this, but I certainly see some people doing it; decide for yourselves whether your posts fit the pattern I'm describing. If it's not about you, it's not about you.

If you're an author who is happy to talk about ways that authors can make readers relate to their characters, or make readers get aroused by a sex scene, or make them visualise a location, but as soon as questions of responsibility come round you find yourself pivoting to "it's absolutely impossible for an author to foresee how their words might affect somebody", maybe sit a while with that contrast.

Me, I've heard from some readers that things in my stories influenced them to be better to their fellow humans or to themselves. It makes me feel warm and fuzzy to believe that in these cases I've made the world a slightly better place. But if I want to believe that, I also have to believe that I have the potential to do harm.